4.5 Article

Validation of venous thromboembolism predictive model in hematologic malignancies

Journal

ANNALS OF HEMATOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00277-023-05463-4

Keywords

Venous thromboembolism; Hematologic malignancy; Risk assessment model; Primary prevention

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed a logistic regression model to predict VTE risk in hospitalized HM patients and validated it both internally and externally. The model includes 5 predictive factors and showed good accuracy and discrimination in predicting VTE risk.
Although several scores stratify venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in solid tumors, hematologic malignancies (HM) are underrepresented. To develop an internal and external validation of a logistic regression model to predict VTE risk in hospitalized HM patients. Validation of the existing VTE predictive model was performed through a prospective case-control study in 496 hospitalized HM patients between December 2010 and 2020 at the Arnaldo Milian University Hospital, Cuba. The predictive model designed with data from 285 patients includes 5 predictive factors: hypercholesterolemia, tumoral activity, use of thrombogenic drugs, diabetes mellitus, and immobilization. The model was internally validated using bootstrap analysis. External validation was realized in a prospective cohort of 211 HM patients. The predictive model had a 76.4% negative predictive value (NPV) and an 81.7% positive predictive value (PPV) in the bootstrapping validation. The area under curve (AUC) in the bootstrapping set was 0.838. Accuracy was 80.1% and 82.9% in the internal and external validation, respectively. In the external validation, the model produced 89.7% of NPV, 67.7% of PPV, 74.6% of sensitivity, and 86.2% of specificity. The AUC in the external validation was 0.900. VTE predictive model is a reproducible and simple tool with good accuracy and discrimination.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available